Speaker 1: Just before nine o'clock last night, the jury returned guilty
Speaker 1: verdicts against all three defendants. It was absolute shambles, to
Speaker 1: tell you the truth, just absolutely really. Heaoans blood on
Speaker 1: his clothing the day after the alleged at top a
Speaker 1: shallow mud bank, and it fits through a river.
Speaker 2: Basically, I think most of the people are used to
Speaker 2: me are good people.
Speaker 3: I think a really important question we need to ask
Speaker 3: is how many Indigenous prisoners in Australia are innocent.
Speaker 1: This is Curtain, a podcast where we pulled back the
Speaker 1: blinds to shine a light on the darkest parts of
Speaker 1: our justice system and ask who are the victims. I'm
Speaker 1: Amy Maguire and.
Speaker 3: I'm Martin Hodgson, a senior advocate for the Foreign Prisoner
Speaker 3: Support Service. And a warning, this series contains the names
Speaker 3: of deceased peoples and has distressing content that might upset
Speaker 3: some listeners.
Speaker 1: Welcome to episode fifty four of kurtin the podcast. Last week,
Speaker 1: we shared a recent photo of Kevin Henry and it's
Speaker 1: the first time the public has seen his image for
Speaker 1: twenty seven years. The response was overwhelming, with more than
Speaker 1: one hundred thousand people viewing the photo over a thousand
Speaker 1: people sharing it and hundreds of comments.
Speaker 2: I have to say I was really overwhelmed and surprised
Speaker 2: at how big the response was. For almost all the
Speaker 2: cases around the world that you work on, it's rare
Speaker 2: that the public will know so much about a case
Speaker 2: and never have seen an up to date photo of
Speaker 2: the person. So, you know, you think of cases like
Speaker 2: Peter Grassta or the Bali nine people have seen their
Speaker 2: photo as perhaps their first introduction to the case, whereas
Speaker 2: here people have heard about Kevin for at least two years.
Speaker 2: Some have known about Kevin for the whole time he's
Speaker 2: been in prison, and yet here we have, now for
Speaker 2: the first time, so many people seeing his picture. Amy,
Speaker 2: Why do you think there was such a huge response.
Speaker 1: I think the enormous reaction was expected. I've always thought
Speaker 1: that when a person is incarcerated and goes behind bars,
Speaker 1: you know the system is stacked against them, and a
Speaker 1: part of that system is the dehumanization of a person.
Speaker 1: They don't become a person anymore, they're a prisoner, and
Speaker 1: so I think being able to see Kevin Henry as
Speaker 1: he is now is very powerful. It shows that there's
Speaker 1: a face to the name, and it shows that we're
Speaker 1: not just talking about some ideological pursuit for justice, as
Speaker 1: justice for a man who has been wrongfully convicted and
Speaker 1: spent time in jail for twenty seven years. He's a
Speaker 1: human being. He has feelings, he has pain, he has hurt,
Speaker 1: he has trauma, and I think being able to see
Speaker 1: that picture of Kevin encapsulates a lot of that. I
Speaker 1: think it's sad that we have to show an image
Speaker 1: of Kevin in order to stress his humanity, but that's
Speaker 1: unfortunately the lengths that we do have to go to
Speaker 1: to continually stress that this is a man. You know,
Speaker 1: this is a human being. What would it be like
Speaker 1: if he was your brother, if he was your father,
Speaker 1: if he was your uncle, if he was your cousin,
Speaker 1: if he was your friend. And I think that's the
Speaker 1: real power of a photograph. It also shows, you know,
Speaker 1: we had other photos and images of Kevin when he
Speaker 1: was only twenty two when he was first incarcerated, and
Speaker 1: that was taken from the local media at the time
Speaker 1: when he was in handcuffs, and so to see him
Speaker 1: grow up and to see, you know, in a physical sense,
Speaker 1: the toll that twenty seven years of incarceration has had
Speaker 1: on him is also very powerful Martin. Under the photo,
Speaker 1: we had a lot of questions from the public who
Speaker 1: may not have known much about Kevin. There were a
Speaker 1: few comments about, well, how do we know he's innocent?
Speaker 1: You can't believe anything on the internet with many people
Speaker 1: not even bothering to research the case. And as we've
Speaker 1: shown across fifty four episodes, now we have a lot
Speaker 1: of concrete evidence study is innocent. But just for the
Speaker 1: listeners who may just be tuning in because of the
Speaker 1: photograph they might have seen on social media, how do
Speaker 1: we know Kevin is innocent?
Speaker 2: I think it's understandable when you have a photograph that
Speaker 2: goes viral like that about a case that does involve
Speaker 2: something as serious and horrible as a murder, that some
Speaker 2: people won't do their research and we'll just ask, how
Speaker 2: do we know that Kevin is innocent? So for the
Speaker 2: purpose of bringing people up to date, but also it's
Speaker 2: relevant for everyone, even those who have listened to every episode,
Speaker 2: I think it's best to just conduct a simple experiment,
Speaker 2: which is to say, imagine yourself as a jury member,
Speaker 2: and I put it to you that your role as
Speaker 2: a jury member as defined by the law, both in
Speaker 2: Australia and as many people who saw the photo were
Speaker 2: from the United States and the United Kingdom and around
Speaker 2: the world. That for the most part, jurisdictions rely on
Speaker 2: what we call beyond a reasonable doubt. So just for
Speaker 2: the next five minutes, just imagine you're a jury member
Speaker 2: in a trial and I put it to you that
Speaker 2: when you're asked to consider the information I'm about to
Speaker 2: give you, that not only will you decide that Kevin
Speaker 2: couldn't and shouldn't have been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,
Speaker 2: that you'll conclude that he is absolutely innocent of this crime.
Speaker 2: And I will use nothing more than what we know
Speaker 2: to be absolute fact and that which is not contested
Speaker 2: either by what was placed on the record in Kevin's
Speaker 2: initial trial. What is witness statements that are in af
Speaker 2: David's at risk of perjury, and what is forensic information
Speaker 2: and forensic data that has come back from internationally certified
Speaker 2: labs that are certified to provide evidence to courts right
Speaker 2: around the world. One of them is recognized by the
Speaker 2: United States Supreme Court and courts across Europe and in Australia.
Speaker 2: So this is not something we're just inventing. Two post
Speaker 2: mortems were done in regards to the death of Linda,
Speaker 2: and there was a third autopsy that was also done.
Speaker 2: In every single case, despite the allegation that Linda was raped,
Speaker 2: I want to make it plainly clear, in none of
Speaker 2: the forensic investigations, the first two that were done, the
Speaker 2: post mortem, or the follow ups that have been done
Speaker 2: in more recent years, is there a single piece of
Speaker 2: evidence that suggests any sexual assault took place whatsoever. It
Speaker 2: just didn't happen. And I would say at this point
Speaker 2: that it really is a disgrace that the police took
Speaker 2: this charge as far as they did. Linda's memory and
Speaker 2: her family should not have to believe that this took
Speaker 2: place when it absolutely didn't. No one went on the stand,
Speaker 2: not a witness to testify it happened, nor a forensic
Speaker 2: expert to say that that happened. So the charge of
Speaker 2: rape can be immediately dismissed. As to the charge of murder,
Speaker 2: I'll begin with the forensic evidence. There was an enormous
Speaker 2: amount of forensic material at the scene, large amounts of blood,
Speaker 2: large amounts of forensic material in terms of hair, clothing,
Speaker 2: all recovered by police in subsequent days. There was also
Speaker 2: things like broken bottles, a number of sticks, and other implements.
Speaker 2: All of this was tested by two separate labs in Queensland.
Speaker 2: At the time. Not a single piece of forensic material
Speaker 2: belonged to Kevin Henry. I'll repeat that, not a single
Speaker 2: piece of forensic material, whether it be DNA, blood, hair
Speaker 2: or anything of the sort, was found at or around
Speaker 2: the crime scene, linking Kevin Henry, not a shred. We
Speaker 2: also know from forensic testing that the claim by police
Speaker 2: that Kevin placed Linder in the water at Tanuba House
Speaker 2: is also inaccurate. We know from more recent testing of
Speaker 2: forensic material that we've explained previously that has to do
Speaker 2: with diatoms that allow us to determine where in a
Speaker 2: waterway a body has been once it's been found. We
Speaker 2: also have the drag mark that was seen by the
Speaker 2: fishermen and the police photographer. We also have the tidle
Speaker 2: records that show Linda would have been placed in the
Speaker 2: river on the other bank, the north side, and not
Speaker 2: at Tanuba House where police allege Kevin Henry was. So again,
Speaker 2: there's no evidence to suggest Kevin Henry ever went near
Speaker 2: the body. There's no evidence to suggest any forensic link whatsoever.
Speaker 2: And in fact, what the evidence does show is not
Speaker 2: only was Kevin Henry not involved, that he couldn't have
Speaker 2: been involved because where the body was placed is not
Speaker 2: where Kevin Henry was. Now, how can we add to that?
Speaker 2: There's certainly a huge amount of doubt there. In fact,
Speaker 2: I would say that alone proves his innocent. But there's
Speaker 2: further information. Eyewitnesses don't place Kevin Henry at the scene
Speaker 2: at the crucial time where Kevin would have had to
Speaker 2: have been to place Linda's body in the water. In fact,
Speaker 2: eyewitnesses place other people at that scene. Eyewitnesses also place
Speaker 2: those people at the place where we know the forensic
Speaker 2: evidence shows Linda's body was put into the water. We
Speaker 2: also know that a man confessed to the crime, and
Speaker 2: that that man's lawyer went to the police and said
Speaker 2: to the police that he had a client who had
Speaker 2: confessed to the crime, and the police said, and I quote,
Speaker 2: we've got a black for a black. Now, we also
Speaker 2: have other witness testimony that shows Kevin Henry was in
Speaker 2: a taxi cab at the time the body was moved
Speaker 2: and placed in the river. We have further evidence from
Speaker 2: eyewitnesses who describe the people who did move the body,
Speaker 2: who described the car and how the body was moved,
Speaker 2: and who describe the clothing that belonged to Linda and
Speaker 2: where it was located, None of which involves Kevin Henry,
Speaker 2: not in a forensic link, no DNA link, and no
Speaker 2: eye witness link. So to be very clear, is there
Speaker 2: an eyewitness that places Kevin Henry with Linda and her
Speaker 2: deceased body? Know, there is not, and the police did
Speaker 2: not present one at his initial trial. Is there forensic
Speaker 2: evidence that links Kevin to Linda in any way whatsoever? No,
Speaker 2: there is not, and the police and the prosecutor did
Speaker 2: not try to offer up such evidence at trial. It
Speaker 2: simply does not exist, and further recent forensic testing shows
Speaker 2: that that's the case too. Are there witnesses that provide
Speaker 2: an alibi for Kevin Henry? Yes, there are. There are
Speaker 2: four new witness statements, and there are also the statements
Speaker 2: of everyone who went on the stand. Not one of
Speaker 2: them pointed the finger at Kevin Henry as them being
Speaker 2: an eyewitness who saw Kevin commit this crime. And a
Speaker 2: number of these new witnesses not only provide alibis for Kevin,
Speaker 2: but provide the information as to who the people were
Speaker 2: that were with Linda's body. So what evidence was even
Speaker 2: taken to trial? All there was is this a supposed confession. Now,
Speaker 2: Kevin Henry has maintained throughout his entire ordeal that he's
Speaker 2: innocent of the crime and that the confession was taken
Speaker 2: under duress. Now, we've previously done a number of episodes
Speaker 2: on this, and I would encourage people to go back
Speaker 2: and look at them and have a listen and hear
Speaker 2: the evidence. But you don't just have to believe me
Speaker 2: or believe Kevin that the confession that he supposedly gave
Speaker 2: was taken under duress. The trial judge ruled it inadmissible,
Speaker 2: and he stated clearly the record of interview from the
Speaker 2: middle of Paya nineteen onwards at the CI branch is
Speaker 2: tainted and cannot be received as a voluntary statement. He
Speaker 2: also states that on a number of occasions Kevin maintained
Speaker 2: his right to counsel and maintained his right not to
Speaker 2: speak further, and they were ignored, and that the police persisted,
Speaker 2: and he even said this about the prosecutor. It is
Speaker 2: clearly conceded by mister Wright. The prosecutor that persistent questioning
Speaker 2: about new matters is not permissible, and it seems to
Speaker 2: me there is no valid distinction between clarifying material already
Speaker 2: given and seeking to investigate new material. What the judge
Speaker 2: was saying there is that at the beginning of the trial,
Speaker 2: the prosecutor conceded that not only was the statement given
Speaker 2: by Kevin in admissible other than the earlier pages where
Speaker 2: he really just talks about what his name is, where
Speaker 2: he lived, where he'd been that night and in the
Speaker 2: days before, but also the new material, which was both
Speaker 2: a video and an audio tape, were not admissible. These
Speaker 2: tapes are important. The videotape was seen by Kevin's cousin,
Speaker 2: uncle Doug Graham, who, like everyone else who saw it,
Speaker 2: says it was grainy and that you could hardly make
Speaker 2: out any of the people in the video. The second
Speaker 2: is the audio tape that the police took of Kevin's
Speaker 2: supposed confession, where he never actually did confess, but was
Speaker 2: ruled inadmissible because it was not voluntary and it was
Speaker 2: taken under threat by those police. Those cassette tapes were
Speaker 2: bought privately by one of the police officers. That cassette
Speaker 2: tape was taken home by a police officer. That cassette
Speaker 2: tape was played in court and appeared to have been
Speaker 2: tampered with. Hence the judge's comments that tape is where
Speaker 2: Kevin Henry alleges he was forced to confess at gunpoint.
Speaker 2: That tape allows us to hear Kevin Henry on multiple
Speaker 2: occasions say that he has nothing more to say about
Speaker 2: this matter and that he does not know what happened.
Speaker 2: That tape also tells us that Kevin Henry wanted legal representation.
Speaker 2: And what that tape also tells us, and what we
Speaker 2: know for a fact, is that Kevin's literacy was such
Speaker 2: that he could not read or write. He couldn't have
Speaker 2: written that statement. It was written for him. Kevin had
Speaker 2: no idea what was written down. He was simply forced
Speaker 2: to sign his name to it. This is not something
Speaker 2: you have to believe the Internet about. This is not
Speaker 2: something you have to believe us over. This is something
Speaker 2: the initial trial judge stated as a matter of fact,
Speaker 2: and that was conceded by mister Wright, the prosecutor. Now
Speaker 2: you have heard the key facts, could you possibly, based
Speaker 2: on those, find Kevin Henry guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2: I would put it to you that you could not.
Speaker 2: And I would also put it to you that based
Speaker 2: on those facts, and if you took the time to
Speaker 2: hear all the evidence we've presented throughout these fifty four episodes,
Speaker 2: that you would find what we find that Kevin Henry
Speaker 2: is not only not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, Kevin
Speaker 2: Henry is an innocent man and has been in prison
Speaker 2: for twenty seven years for a crime he did not commit.
Speaker 1: And what about the comments that called for a retrial.
Speaker 2: As to the issue of a retrial, firstly, one is
Speaker 2: simply not available. Kevin's initial lawyers exhausted all appeals. Unfortunately,
Speaker 2: in my opinion, the grounds they appealed on, and we
Speaker 2: know this from the transcripts, was not to do with
Speaker 2: any of the evidence or anything that we've uncovered. It
Speaker 2: was purely about the Privacy Act and related to the
Speaker 2: interview that was taken under duress and the way that happened.
Speaker 2: It was purely on technical legal issues and was not successful.
Speaker 2: So those appeals have been exhausted, So a retrial A
Speaker 2: can't happen. But B I would also say we don't
Speaker 2: want nor need a retrial. The evidence is more than
Speaker 2: clear enough Kevin is eligible for parole and should be paroled,
Speaker 2: and that's something I'll talk about in a moment. And
Speaker 2: we've also presented a great deal of information to the
Speaker 2: Attorney General's Department of Queensland and the Governor General, who
Speaker 2: have the ability to pardon Kevin. A retrial would simply
Speaker 2: prove what we already know that Kevin Henry is an
Speaker 2: innocent man. It would cost an enormous amount of money,
Speaker 2: it would drag on for years, and it would cause
Speaker 2: a great deal of distress to Linda's family who would
Speaker 2: have to hear all of the details again. And it
Speaker 2: would also require many of the witnesses who were traumatized
Speaker 2: by these events to be involved in a new trial.
Speaker 2: The other thing that makes it impossible is that many
Speaker 2: of the witnesses are sadly deceased and they wouldn't be
Speaker 2: to appear. Quite obviously, there's just no point to a retrial.
Speaker 2: There's really no evidence that could be presented at a
Speaker 2: retrial in terms of a prosecution's case, because there isn't
Speaker 2: a case against Kevin Henry. Now, if the police wanted
Speaker 2: to actually reopen the case, we would absolutely be open
Speaker 2: to that because unlike the police over all these years,
Speaker 2: and particularly unlike the police who investigated Linda's murder in
Speaker 2: the very early days, we actually care about justice for Linda.
Speaker 2: We actually care about finding out the truth of what
Speaker 2: happened and ensuring that everyone knows exactly what occurred and
Speaker 2: who is responsible, so that there can be some closure,
Speaker 2: some truth, some justice. And I think part of the
Speaker 2: podcast process has been to present the truth, not only
Speaker 2: because it proves Kevin's innocence, but it also dispels many
Speaker 2: of the misstatements, misinformation, and untruths spread by the police,
Speaker 2: one of which is the disgusting suggestion that they made
Speaker 2: that Linda had been raped when we know their own
Speaker 2: forensic experts told them that never took place, and that
Speaker 2: is in writing. So a retrial is not going to happen.
Speaker 2: It's not something we want to call for, and it's
Speaker 2: not something that needs to happen. There are other processes
Speaker 2: in place.
Speaker 1: A lot of people also asked about his parole. There
Speaker 1: was one comment talking about the fact that she had
Speaker 1: read Kevin had been out on parole before. Can you
Speaker 1: just clarify exactly where the parole process is up to
Speaker 1: and also for listeners who may not know why Kevin
Speaker 1: has been unable to be a proof of parole previously.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so Kevin Henry obviously has never been out on parole.
Speaker 2: That just hasn't taken place. The issue to do with
Speaker 2: parole is that Kevin has obviously served the sentence that
Speaker 2: mandates the twenty five year minimum. There was also a
Speaker 2: fifteen year minimum as well, so he's obviously completed both
Speaker 2: of those and was initially eligible for parole many years ago.
Speaker 2: The main issue that he's holding up the parole is
Speaker 2: the fact that the parole board is bound by what
Speaker 2: was found at trial, which is that Kevin was guilty
Speaker 2: of both the rape and murder of Linda, and the
Speaker 2: parole process when it involves a sexual assault rightly requires
Speaker 2: that a person go through counseling and rehabilitation where possible,
Speaker 2: if possible. But as we've pointed out, not only is
Speaker 2: Kevin Henry innocent, he of course didn't commit this rape
Speaker 2: because no rape occurred. So there's been a real problem
Speaker 2: in that the parole Board has been saying Kevin has
Speaker 2: to do a sex offender's rehabilitation cause he can't do
Speaker 2: one because it he admit his guilt. He's not guilty.
Speaker 2: It he discuss aspects of the crime. We know from
Speaker 2: the forensic evidence, the evidence provided by the Queensland State
Speaker 2: Prosecutor's Office that this didn't happen. It would require Kevin
Speaker 2: to lie. He's not going to do that. So it's
Speaker 2: been litigated, and we've litigated many times against the Parole
Speaker 2: Board and their refusal, and we've won every single time.
Speaker 2: Right now, we are in the process of organizing and
Speaker 2: we have organized for an expert in the field to
Speaker 2: conduct a number of interviews with Kevin that would satisfy
Speaker 2: the Parole Board that this is in fact the case,
Speaker 2: that Kevin Henry is a of course not a sex
Speaker 2: offender and be not at all a threat to the
Speaker 2: community because he wasn't a criminal in the first place.
Speaker 2: And we hope to resolve this issue as soon as possible,
Speaker 2: but sadly it does take time and we're being forced
Speaker 2: to jump through hoops that are very complicated because this
Speaker 2: is such a unique case where a man is serving
Speaker 2: twenty seven years so far for a crime he didn't commit,
Speaker 2: and there's no flexibility in the law to navigate such
Speaker 2: a problem where the state has wrongly locked up an
Speaker 2: innocent man. But we are continuing, of course, with this process,
Speaker 2: and we expect that in the coming months we will
Speaker 2: have navigated this issue.
Speaker 1: People have also asked what they can do to support Kevin.
Speaker 1: What can they do, Martin.
Speaker 2: There's really two very simple things people can do to
Speaker 2: help Kevin, and I think the way we started this
Speaker 2: podcast today demonstrates the first of those things, which is
Speaker 2: share the podcast. Just as people shared the photo of
Speaker 2: Kevin and hundreds of thousands of people saw it, and
Speaker 2: thousands shared it, we saw thousands of comments from around
Speaker 2: the world. Raising awareness about these issues is the first
Speaker 2: step to solving them. We have to have as many
Speaker 2: people as possible knowing what is going on. It's very
Speaker 2: difficult to get anywhere when the entire public seems naive
Speaker 2: and ignorant to what is taking place. So the first
Speaker 2: thing you can do is share the podcast. This is
Speaker 2: the fifty fourth episode we've recorded. Every single one contains
Speaker 2: vital information. And the more you share it and the
Speaker 2: more people listen, the more the public becomes aware of
Speaker 2: what's going on. And then here's where the rubber hits
Speaker 2: the road. Running cases like this, freeing innocent men like
Speaker 2: Kevin Henry bringing justice for Linda, as is proven and
Speaker 2: happening now on a daily basis in the United States,
Speaker 2: as we see people exonerated and sent free after serving
Speaker 2: decades for crimes they didn't commit. These cases cost a
Speaker 2: lot of money. As Kevin's senior legal advocate, I don't
Speaker 2: charge Kevin a single cent, never have, never will. But
Speaker 2: we still need to file freedom of information requests. We
Speaker 2: need to have forensic material tested. We need to write
Speaker 2: up all of the research that we've done and can
Speaker 2: continue to provide information to the governor, the Attorney General,
Speaker 2: the parole Board. We need to employ the right experts.
Speaker 2: We've had to litigate against the Parole Board a number
Speaker 2: of times. All of this costs large amounts of money.
Speaker 2: And while I wish I was flushed with cash, and
Speaker 2: I'm sure Amy does too, it's just not the case.
Speaker 2: So if you want to support both the podcast and
Speaker 2: the work we're doing to spread this information about Kevin
Speaker 2: and also the broader issue of the over incarceration of
Speaker 2: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island, the people the sheer number
Speaker 2: of these cases that have resulted in innocent people in prison,
Speaker 2: then please consider supporting us financially, you can do it
Speaker 2: from as little as a dollar a month twelve dollars
Speaker 2: a year. All you have to do is go to
Speaker 2: our Patreon page, which you can find on the website
Speaker 2: www dot com, curtainthepodcast dot com, or go to Patreon
Speaker 2: and find us under Curtain podcast.
Speaker 1: That was episode fifty four of Curtain